Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Pickingill/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2015.

George Pickingill

 * Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an alleged "cunning man", or vocational folk magician, who lived in the Eastern English county of Essex during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. A curious figure, local folk tales grew up around him and his alleged magical powers, which included the ability to command both animals and imps to do his bidding. The article has been massively expanded by myself over the past year or so, and has successfully passed GAN and also received a peer review. Those editors with an interest in the eccentric and the odd might enjoy reading this one, as will those with a more specific interest in the history of magic, witchcraft, and esotericism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * If it's obvious from the caption who is pictured, you don't need to actually say "pictured"
 * Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * File:George_Pickingill,_Cunning_Man.jpg: use non-free biog-pic instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Done; thanks Nikkimaria! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Support (with a caveat). I had my say at PR, and, having just read through the article again, I can say with confidence that it is of a very high quality. Midnightblueowl should be commended. I have made some final tweaks, and there are a last few comments below. My one remaining concern is with the reliability of a particular source, but I am willing to defer if others do not share my concerns. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "by threatening to set white mice on them, a rodent which in local folklore were associated with misfortune" As written, the "rodent" being described is the "them" (that is, the victim of the mouse attack). This needs to be reworked a little, but I'm not sure I can see any easy way to do it.
 * I've changed this to "threatening to set upon them white mice, a rodent which in local folklore were associated with misfortune". It is not necessarily ideal, so if any other editors had further suggestions, then they would be welcome. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Ward suggested that many of the stories regarding Pickingill's magical activities were adopted from those of a genuine Essex cunning man, James Murrell." Do you mean adapted or adopted, here?
 * Both fit in there actually, although I think that adapted probably works a little better, so I'll change it there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "In this, his claims fitted within the historical framework of the witch-cult hypothesis as propagated in the works of Margaret Murray." Is it worth noting that the witch-cult hypothesis is discredited?
 * Agreed and done! Midnightblueowl (talk)

Comments from Mike Christie
I'm copyediting as I go; please revert if I make any mistakes. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "local people were inventing claims to please Maple, many of which were based on older tales": suggest rephrasing to place "claims" next to "many of which".
 * I'm sorry, but I don't follow 100% here; are you suggesting that I get rid of "to please Maple" altogether, or just moving it to the end of the sentence ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was a bit telegraphed. I meant that "to please Maple" interrupts the sense of "claims, many of which", so I was suggesting something like "local people, to please Maple, were inventing claims, many of which were based on older tales". Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "By 1851, he is recorded as lodging in the household of David Clemens in Little Wakering, Essex, and described himself as a farm labourer by profession": "lodging" and "described" should be in the same tense; I'd also suggest "In 1851" instead of "By".
 * Done and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "according to the marriage rites of the Church of England" is a little long-winded; can we just say "at St. George's Church, an Anglican church in Gravesend, Kent"?
 * Agreed and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Described on the record as a "spinster" ': the marriage certificates always described the women as spinsters or widows; I would just say she was unmarried when they wed -- or perhaps don't mention it at all. The way you have it makes it sound to someone unfamiliar with these records as if it's significant they said she was a spinster.
 * I have removed this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Mary Ann Pickingill": is this a typo for "Sarah Ann Pickingill"?
 * No, this is correct. It's a little strange but she seemed to use both names. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just checking: is Rochdale the correct location for Taylor's trial? It's quite a way from Essex, where the crime took place.  Should this be Rochford, which seems to be the local market town?
 * Quite right, it's Rochford. What a silly mistake I made !?! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why "namely horses", when the rest of the sentence describes his control over game animals?
 * I think the meaning here (which is conveyed from the original source) is that he could exert full control over horses to do his bidding, but that he could also make game animals run out of a hedgerow, while not necessarily being able to control them any further than that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How about "particularly" rather than "namely" in that case? "Namely" implies that horses are all that the sentence refers to; "particularly" avoids that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The paragraph starting "According to Maple" has "the village of Canewdon" and "the agricultural village of Canewdon"; can we just say "Canewdon"?
 * Agreed and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest putting quotes around "senial decay and cardiac failure", since it appears to be quoting the death certificate.
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I meant that it should be quoted because "senial" wasn't modern spelling, so it needed to be apparent to the reader that that's how the source had it. Assuming that it was your typo, it's fine with or without quotes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "his abandoned house gradually fell into dilapidation before": suggest either "fell into disrepair" or "became dilapidated".
 * Agreed and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A minor MoS issue: you have unspaced em dashes in the text, but in at least one quote I see spaced en dashes instead. I think you should be consistent.
 * "Pagan" is inconsistently capitalized.
 * The capitalised version applies to the contemporary religious movements, the lower-case version instead refers to pre-Christian belief systems. I've seen it applied in the works of various historians to differentiate between the two. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought it might be something like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Kelly believed that either Liddell or his Elders were thus "purposely creating a phony history in order to throw researchers off the trail" which would have revealed that Gardner had invented Wicca in its entirety in the early 1950s." I don't follow the second half; what would have revealed this?  The trail?  I think this needs to be rephrased.
 * I've gone with "Kelly believed that either Liddell or his Elders had purposely created a "phony history" in order to hide the fact that Gardner had invented Wicca in its entirety in the early 1950s." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What makes deadfamilies.com, geraldgardner.com and pickingill.com reliable sources?
 * Pickingill.com is only being used to cite the views of its author/co-author, Bill Liddell, whose beliefs certainly constitute a "significant minority view" (and as evidence for that I would point to the fact that Liddell's statements have been cited in the work of academics like Ronald Hutton, Owen Davies, and Ethan Doyle White). Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The citation to Geraldgardner.com features an article authored by Julia Philips, a prominent Wiccan who has published books on esoteric history (we cite one of her books extensively over at the FA-rated article on Madeline Montalban, for instance). She might not be an academic, but she is surely reliable enough for use in this single citation ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Deadfamilies.com is a website that is used extensively in this article, and is invaluable to it at present. It has published the researches of William Wallworth, in which he extensively quotes from other primary and secondary sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK on the first two. For deadfamilies.com, I can see it's been very useful to the article, but can you provide any information about the editorial control exercised over the site?  WP:NOTRELIABLE is fairly explicit about self-published websites, which I'm afraid is what this appears to be.

Oppose. I'm doubtful that deadfamlies.com can be shown to be reliable, so I feel I have to oppose. Sorry, Midnightblueowl. I think this is a fine article and would undoubtedly be featured quality (though shorter) without that source, though of course the best outcome would be if you're able to demonstrate that it meets the definition of an RS. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I fear I have sympathy for Mike's view (delegates- this concern was my "caveat"). I think there are three ways this source could be shown to be a good one. First, we could find that there is some significant editorial control over deadfamilies.com. Second, we could find that the author of that piece is someone who has published their work on this topic (or a closely related topic) in a source we know to be reliable- a book from a decent publisher, an academic journal, something like that. Third, we could find some other source (a book from a good publisher or a peer reviewed article, say) which cites the page in question as reliable. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for comments, Mike and Josh. Sadly, I fear that this is going to be a serious brick wall at present, and that as such this article will fail its current GAN. Hopefully future published research from academic sources might resolve this situation in the future, at which this article could be re-nominated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Closing cmt -- I'll take Midnightblueowl's final comment as a withdrawal and archive this nom; good luck with resolving down the track! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.